Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 44/2022 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal for late objection to conviction due to missing information claim.

Numero d'incarto KKO 44/2022
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court of Finland decided to leave the appeal regarding the rejection of a late objection to a conviction without examination. The appellant argued they could not object within the five-year statutory limit because they were unaware of the conviction earlier. The court determined that the appellant's claim of ignorance did not justify extending the strict time limit for filing the objection.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Laki rikosilmoittamisesta 100/1997; Laki rikosilmoittamisesta 100/1997: The statutory time limit for filing an objection to a conviction is mandatory and cannot be extended based on a claim of ignorance regarding the conviction.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
statutory time limit objection to conviction late objection ignorance defense criminal procedure law Supreme Court ruling procedural deadline motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Laki rikosilmoittamisesta 100/1997
Generato dall'IA
kko-other_2005_4
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against refusal to file complaint when time limit expired.
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
appeal_1982_rovaniemi__568
Failure to submit written appeal instructions within the statutory deadline results in dismissal of the appeal.
kko-precedent_1998_50
Supreme Court restores time limit for debt arrangement objection when client's lawyer missed notification due to client's illness.
kko-precedent_1993_122
Supreme Court restored limitation period for objection due to court's erroneous phone response and timely re-submission.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

A ilmoitti tyytymättömyyttä yli viisi vuotta tyytymättömyyden ilmoittamiselle säädetyn määräajan jälkeen vedoten siihen, ettei hän ollut saanut tietoa tuomiosta aiemmin. Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisusta ilmenevillä perusteilla katsottiin, että tyytymättömyyden ilmoittamisen hylkäämistä koskeva kantelu olisi pitänyt jättää tutkimatta.